October 31, 2004

Poetry Magazine has made some big changes in the last year: more prose, more commentary, more perspective on poetry, a large number of first-time appearances, etc. Many people have welcomed these changes (including me, considering I subscribed this year after buying one or two issues a year for the past 10 years). But now, for the first time, we can offer objective proof of the success of the changes they’ve introduced. Here is a BRIEF summary of the thirteen reader’s letters published in the November 2004 issue:

  • Eleanor Wilner is right: Operation Homecoming is propaganda and should be silenced
  • Eleanor Wilner is right: Operation Homecoming glorifies war and should be silenced.
  • Eleanor Wilner is wrong: Operation Homecoming tries to encourage and expand the growth of literature.
  • Eleanor Wilner is wrong: Operation Homecoming should be given a chance to accomplish its stated goals.
  • Jonathan Epstein is a snob.
  • Jonathan Epstein is a good writer, but wrong about laureateship.
  • Jonathan Epstein is self-indulgent with his own righteous indignation.
  • Jonathan Epstein is right on the money.
  • Jonathan Epstein is amusing but missing some facts.
  • Fiction writers have new perspectives on poetry. Keep it up!
  • That fiction writer has nothing useful to say about poetry. Stop it already!
  • Your magazine is out of touch, why aren’t you writing about social issues and politics?
  • Your book reviews are too negative. Please tell me which books I should buy.
  A few points:   Contradicting opinions over Wilner’s position on Operation Homecoming? Excellent. That’s clear evidence of thoughtful disagreement (although one of the letters, by a prominent writer, contains some disturbing statements implying artists should only generate certain kinds of ideas – out of a sense of responsibility, of course).   Lack of consensus over Epstein’s position on the value of Laureateship? Excellent. This likewise is evidence of thoughtful disagreement. My summaries don’t do the short letters justice – you should go read all five of them and the article they critique as well. I don’t agree with all of it, but there are some excellent arguments.   Can fiction writers critique poetry? I happen to think this was a great experiment, and I appreciated learning what someone not immersed in poetry finds important in poems. If everyone who produces verse spent a little time on this endeavor, we might just find ways to expand poetry’s audience (those of you who think an expanded audience is not a good idea, please hold that thought for a future Writer’s Blog).   Poetry Magazine is out of touch? You may disagree, but I think this (as the writer phrased it) is good news also. There is no lack of agenda-themed collections and journals, where the point is more important than the poem. Hearken back to the Williams line: “You cannot get the news from poems, but men die every day for lack of what is found there.” I do not interpret this to mean “please cram your poems with news”. Good poems seek other good poems. Period.   Negative reviews? Hallelujah! Please identify for me three other places you’ve ever seen a negative review. Or a neutral review. Or a marginally non-glowing review, for that matter. The writer of this letter actually mentions another magazine whose reviews are obviously too positive, but that he bought the recommended books anyway. Ugh. Take a word of advice from me: Read more poems; that’s how you find new poets.

Bottom line: If you haven’t read an issue of Poetry recently, you need to. You may not like it, but no other journal is delivering everything that Poetry delivers. That alone makes it worth a read, but seeing wildly differing opinions on its content tells me Poetry is clearly thinking for itself: its agenda, if you can call it that, is to touch everyone’s agenda. Excellent.


David Vincenti
Advisor, Center for the Performing Arts at DeBaun Auditorium
www.debaun.org; www.davidvincenti.com